Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Biased, opinionated, non-neutral edits to Gun politics in Mexico

It has come to my attention that the Wikipedia editor EnochBethany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made at least seven recent edits to the Gun politics in Mexico article of which at least five, I believe, are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

The following is the lists of all seven edits done by EnochBethany to the Gun politics in Mexico article as of the time I am submitting this complain. Highlighted in bold are the exact changes done by EnochBethany which I consider biased/non-neutral:

• 1st edit: [1] Here EnochBethany changes the following: "While contemporary Mexican society has not embraced gun culture as passionately as its northern neighbor, the United States, firearms have played a significant role in the History of Mexico..." to "Contemporary Mexican society has embraced gun homicide more passionately than its northern neighbor, the United States, and firearms have played a significant role in the History of Mexico..."

The use of embrace passionately was an emotive term out of place in an encyclopedia article. I allowed it, however, in my first revision. And if it were appropriate in the original, it is appropriate in my revision. However, I decided to omit those words altogether, as well as the reference to the USA, since the purpose of the article is not to criticize the USA. Any comparison should be with the world, not with the USA. The article is not about the USA. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

• 2nd edit: (here EnochBethany added a reference link to 1st edit) ...Contemporary Mexican society has embraced gun homicide more passionately than its northern neighbor, the United States,

Adding a citation was in order. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

• 3rd edit: [2] A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them. [...] Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.

Reference to a "common misconception" would be very hard to prove. If a secondary source said that, it would be commending itself as unreliable. The generalization about misconception needed qualification, which I provided. Indeed those who watch Spanish language news would not have a misconception "no person may possess them," as the new is full of persons may and do possess them, especially against the law. This is a fact, not a POV. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

• 4th edit: (deletion done by EnochBethany, no violation here)
• 5th edit: [3] Private ownership of firearms is restricted to the home only, except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.

No reference to owning guns is complete without including the fact of criminal ownership. This is not a POV, criminal ownership is a fact. Also that criminals choose where to carry and shoot guns is well-know. The supporting citation is valid and is just one of many citations that could be given, as you well know. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

• 6th edit: [4] The transfer of ownership and the sale and purchase of firearms between individuals is also permitted, but the transaction must receive authorization from the Secretariat of National Defense by both parties (buyer and seller) appearing in person along with the weapon, to conduct the transaction in accordance to requirements set by law,except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.

There can be no doubt but that crimnals in Mexico get no permission, yet carry and use guns commonly. This is no POV, but a fact. The supporting citation is valid as well as common knowledge. You know very well that many sources could be added to support this, but they are not necessary. This is not POV, but fact. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

• 7th edit: [5] ...With all receipts and documentation, along with photo ID, appear in person at DCAM to pick up firearm. A temporary transportation permit (valid for 24 to 72hrs) is granted, which permits the owner to transport the firearm from DCAM to his or her home by personal or public transportation (ground or air). As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.

It is a fact & not any POV what persons may choose to buy guns and ammo without regard to the law. An article about owning and possessing guns in Mexico should be objective, not biased to give a false impression. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

It appears editor EnochBethany wants to assert to Wikipedia readers that despite the fact that there are laws governing the lawful ownership and possession of firearms in Mexico, there are people who choose to ignore these laws and proceed to own and possess guns illegally. This is true, but the article is a not a forum to rant about how some people choose to break the law in Mexico because lawbreakers exists in all societies, not just Mexico.

This is no rant; it is an objective presentation of facts. The rant is the irrational objection to my factual additions to the article. For some reason some person or persons does not LIKE the facts. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

Imagine the driver license article stating something somewhere along the lines of: "A driver's license/licence or driving licence is an official document which states that a person may operate a motorized vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck or a bus, on a public roadway. However, one can always ignore the law and chose to drive a vehicle without a driver license or authorization from the government."... The sentence in bold is an example of the style of writing EnochBethany has chosen to let readers know there are those who choose to break firearm law in Mexico.

I was going to proceed and revert all edits done by user EnochBethany that I consider biased/non-neutral but I did not want to fall into an Edit warring & 3RR incident with him or her. I would appreciate if an Administrator would revise my grievances and decide. I suggest that if EnochBethany wants to remind readers of the gun violence and unlawful proliferation of firearms that does exist in Mexico, he/she creates an additional section in the article, similarly to the Gun violence section of the Gun politics in Honduras article. I have informed EnochBethany of this notice. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Usfirstgov apparently is opposed to NPOV, as his complaints are directed against including all relevant information. What I added to the article is inclusive material on the subject with citations. As the article was before my improvements, it ignored the realities of illegal activity. The emotive words in the article came from whomever edited before myself. Apparently USfirstgov wants to edit war and has made this complaint to support his activity. The article should not be written from the POV that the attitudes of the people in a nation are defined by the mythical idea that the people all adhere to the law in their conduct. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements. Maybe this should have been at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is an NPOV violation, attempt to censor material that is factual and not POV at all, but someone who evidently wants negative comparisons to the USA, I put my material back. A discussion should take place & an attempt at consensus before reverting additional information, which is what I added. Indeed the aljazeera article does back the statements, which in fact are common knowledge and could easily be supported from many sources, as surely you must know. But I went further in fixing this article now. This article is supposed to be about Mexico, not the USA. Thus all the negative things about the USA or unfavorable comparisons need deleting. If you want to compare Mexico, do it to the entire world. It appears that there may be some POV ax to grind vs the USA in this article. It is totally out of place. Thus I have removed the irrelevant references to the USA.

Another matter is the edit-warrier's comment above: "Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements." Where is any "poor language"??? Note how you start that sentence with "Besides some poor language." In English class you may find that called "a dangling modifier," as it has no rational connection to the main sentence. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear EnochBethany, I am not attempting to censor you or censor any information out of the Gun politics in Mexico article (proof of that is that I did not revert any of your edits, instead I called for a dialogue to get more opinions on the matter), I am simply pointing out that your choice of words and structure within the article is not encyclopedic and therefore inappropriate. The comparisons about the United States are valid because Mexico and the United States are neighbors and as such both countries are influenced by each other's cultures (for good or bad). There is nothing about the article attempting to grind against the US. The references about the US is to give world readers a compassion of two neighboring nations (one with a high cultural attachment to firearms, as in the case of the US and one who no longer has an equal cultural attachment, as in the case of Mexico). And I mainly speak of the lawful cultural attachment to firearms, not unlawful activity. Now, I understand that gun violence in Mexico has been rampant in recent years, it is fine to point this out in the article but it should be done within Wikipedia standards, not with sentences such as (I quote your own contributions):

• Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.
• ...except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.
• ...except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.
• As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.

The aforementioned statements do not fit within the article. Anything pointing out the unlawful use of firearms should be dealt with in a difference section, not within the sections that tell readers what the laws says and how persons can engage in lawful acquisition, ownership, and possession of firearms in Mexico. I hope others in the Wikipedia community can see what I'm trying to convey and let you know. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You are repeating material posted above. I responded to all those references to my additions above. They are objective facts, not POV. Well, I suggest a simple revision to the first sentence. I posted it on the article talk page where, I think, discussions like this belong. If it is stated at the outset that the article only covers legal considerations without regard to criminal and illegal activities, that should make my additions unnecessary. Then I have no objection to their deletion. The USA references, however, need to be deleted. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

OK so. On first reading on thing that strikes me here is edit #1 where does not embrace as much becomes "has embraced gun homicide more passionately." The reference is rather sketchy and c'mon, 3.66 vs. 3.6? Yeah, that's more, but...the site itself looks user-generated. I'd be inclined to say it's ok for non-controversial stuff since it does look like a relatively clear-eyed attempt at factual presentation, but as who's more passionate...and look at that source link. Might as well just link to wikipedia directly. So. Passion is emotion in my book, and in my opinion it would be better to restate. I do find the repeated insertions unreferenced statements about what criminals do to be pretty obnoxious. If you really want that in, go find a newspaper article or two that says this. Gun violence in Mexico? Try the El Paso Times, geez. As for the comparison to the US, that really should cite a secondary source also. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is sourcing and original research. I found:"Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.[6] - there is no article at the link that says this. I've left that in for the nonce.

" except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.[7] - the linked article doesn't say this, the editor is using it as an argument for his edit - this is what we call original research, see WP:NOR.

"except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"></ref> - basically the same thing.

And "As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law."[8] - I've deleted all 3. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd take the first one out too. It's an assertion of "common knowledge" which really requires a reference. I do see your point about the Al Jazeera link. It documents *one* incident of gun violence, not the blanket assertion that the editor wants to make. It's not like there aren't sources that say that gun violence occurs in Mexico -- I just found three on a fast Google. Of course none of them exactly say that laws don't keep Mexicans from buying guns, but some of them come close. In other words, yeah, there may be a case for making edits to the article, but not these. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO wp:npov is just one of the problems with the edits. The others are wp:ver / wp:nor lack of reliable sourcing for the statements as worded, and also unenclyclopedic writing, bordering on being rants. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And pardon my dangling modifier, my edits outside article space (and some edit summaries) are more casual and not proofread. I hope I don't write sentences such as "except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." Unnecessary comma and what is "get need no" (yes, poor proof reading probably rather than just bad grammar). Nor does that make sense - they carry guns in defiance of the law, not because they "get need no permission", and what does 'yet' mean in this context? They need no permission to carry guns yet they carry guns? That's what I meant by poor English. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume "get need no" should be "get/need no".--Auric talk 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reading through this notice made my head spin, but as I see it this is a violation. I believe that the statements made by EnochBethany were opinionated and unwarranted. The sources are a bit on the lighter side (content wise) but yet demonstrate common misconceptions and beliefs about Mexico. It is as if his/her statements are something that could be added to any Wikipedia page and be proven in the way that EnochBethany did. But like I said, his/her sources were not substantial and a bit biased.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Is the word enemy neutral?

[Note: Links to the BBC may not be visible outside the UK]

I came across this article on the BBC web site which led me to this one then, on a hunch, our article. Is the word enemy, used in our article, a neutral term in this context? --Senra (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on context. The article you refer to simply says that the British army uses them to "fly into enemy territory". That's generic. The enemy is whoever the army is engaging at the time. I can't see how any other word could be as meaningfully used. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would second Paul B's response. I don't see how anyone could dispute that the intended target of a military weapon is considered an "enemy". --Brian Z (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you both in this context. How can you say that the following is neutral? "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line to fly into enemy territory to take video and still images before returning to the operator". It talks about a specific deployment and thus identifies the Afghanis as enemy. Compare our article with the two BBC articles which are clearly more neutral --Senra (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The usage of "enemy" in the article happens in a separate clause that I read as just talking about the technology's purse in general, which seems to be neutral.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "enemy" is never neutral. There is always a negative connotation because of the way it's talked about. An "enemy" is never going to call themselves an "enemy" therefore it cannot be neutral. However, using the word "enemy" is unavoidable in the context. Rebaduck (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "enemy territory" to "other territory"? Just saying enemy territory would exclude the fact that they could use it on neutral territory as well. By saying "other" the article will not label areas as good or bad, but rather just territories that are not their own. --MangoDango (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if "enemy" is unavoidable...the Mirror states that the Black Hornet can run thirty-minute reconnaissance missions, so it's a simple fix: "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line for thirty-minute reconnaissance missions before returning to the operator." More problematic, I think, is: "Designed to blend in with the muddy grey walls in Afghanistan, it has been used to look around corners or over walls and other obstacles to identify any hidden dangers and enemy positions." I agree with Senra; the "enemy" is inferred to be Afgani, and I can't see how such a sentence could be considered neutral. And in my mind, the perhaps overly-descriptive mention of "muddy grey walls" isn't helping the neutrality matter, either. --Katerwaul (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, enemy is a neutral term. Why would anyone the British are fighting be offended by the idea that they are the enemy of the British and the British are the enemy of them? If the article called these Afghan rebels, for example, the enemies of freedom and democracy, that would be different, but as it is I just don't see an issue. - Cal Engime (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How is "enemy" a neutral term? The dictionary states, "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." I don't see any neutrality associated. But, I don't know if "enemy" is avoidable in the article.--Jastout (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see an issue either. This is like saying the word opponent is not neutral. Each side is fighting against each other and both would consider them enemies. Depending on who is attacking who the word enemy is relative. The same people defending the attack would say they are defending the enemy. There are other ways to word "enemy territory" to completely bypass this whole neutrality. But if everyone insists on using the word enemy, I do not see a problem with it.--SJRick (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleo Rocos (and elsewhere) : Use of "best known for"

There has been substantial edit warring at Cleo Rocos and heated discussion at the associated talk page, with some claiming it violates NPOV to say a subject is "best known for" something, and some think it's okay. Reading the recent obituary of Richard Briers on BBC News here, I notice they use the phrase "Actor Richard Briers, best known for his role in TV's The Good Life...." To hopefully close the lid on this feud once and for all, I'm going to bring it here for a wider audience to see what everyone else's opinion is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In this context the BBC has a specific implied audience of the UK and their statement best known for needs no further qualification. In the Wikipedia encyclopaedic context of a global audience, however, best known for needs qualification such as best known in the UK for or whatever --Senra (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that would only be appropriate if he was better known for something else in another part of the world. As an example, an early version of Hugh Laurie said he was "best known for his television work, especially his partnership with Stephen Fry", which was (probably) correct in 2002, but now, post House, is not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"best known for" is in all circumstances an unverifiable statement, a pure matter of opinion and should not be included in articles. That it appears in news sources is of no relevance. NPOV requires that you simply state the facts, and not apply a judgement to them. How does the BBC or anyone else know what Richard Briers is best known for? Have they polled a representative sample of the population? Of course they haven't. They are making an assumption. And why should we regurgitate that assumption? What are we adding to any article by saying "X is best known for Y", instead of simply saying "X is Y"? Nothing, except a point of view which is not neutral. 150.244.54.122 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "best known for" is, in every case, just an opinion. However, if this opinion is widely shared throughout the world (not just the U.S., or not just in Europe) I think it is a reasonable statement to be used. Yes, nobody for sure knows what a person is "best known for", but if you could ask different people from different backgrounds and different countries about someone and they all agree on one fact about them, I see no problem in including that fact. This is easier said than done because it would be hard to get the verification needed for that kind of statement, but the concept is there.Kslinker5493 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of cases in which the statement "X is best known for Y" has been tested by means of a poll of a representative sample of the global population is zero, for all values of X and Y. 212.145.150.133 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This has spilled out into attempts to push a POV in places like Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Cleo Rocos.[9][10]

BTW, I would like to see someone dispute the fact that Guy Fawkes is best known for the Gunpowder Plot. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I could make the argument that Guy Fawkes is best known for having a celebration named after him, a celebration with bonfires and fireworks displays... It is amazing how many people have absolutely no idea why there are fireworks on the 5th of November, or why that day is named called "Guy Fawkes"... Yet they know that's the name of the celebration. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism section of a private prison company

Hi! At Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#GEO_Group there was an issue over a private prison company trying to scrub its controversies section.

But I heard that it is usually better to have the controversies and praise mixed together throughout the article. How should the criticisms section be re-arranged? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not include a reference the article on Deadspin? Rather than continue with the on-and-off changes, provide an objective account about this "edit war" happening in the first place, including both critics' and the prison's viewpoints (if they've said anything).

• If Deadspin is an RS it could be cited. I also argued that details about specific prisons should be moved to specific prison articles while only criticisms related to the overall system be retained in the prison system article WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo

I recently attended a workshop in Kosovo, where I taught student to edit Wikipedia. A number of articles were created, and some of them are now subject to NPoV disputes:

• Bifurcation of Nerodimka river (note recent rename)
• Monuments of Kosovo
• Timeline of Kosovo history

It would be good if they could have some attention from neutral editors, especially these with an understanding of the politics of the region. Please bear in mind that the article creators are all young, and new to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Have put all three on 'watch list', and will follow developements with interest. RashersTierney (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Tourism in Kosovo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Kosovo probably isn't one for the hotlist, I say this as one who may appear to be a belligerent on that article! The article hasn't seen anything drastic that a plain old revert won't fix such as here [11] and here[12]. Concerning my own aspirations, I am now looking to merge as much from a revision with which I came into conflict as possible. If the editor in question returns, I hope the page will be to his satisfaction. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, problem is bigger then this.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013

Most of those articles are highly POV, with all names in Albanian, without any other relevant information beside Albanian. This looks like a propaganda tool for me. When number of editors pop up, and create a number of very non neutral articles, that is a problem for a project and its balance. All of those articles need to be fixed. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Albanian placenames are reasonable enough, since that's the primary language of Kosovo. It is unfortunate that you consider that a propaganda tool. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No its not, as this is actally not Albanian wikipedia, but English one. We have agreed names of articles, and only that should be used. Also, you should stop hoarding my edits, and comment everything against me, often without any real arguments, or i will be forced to report you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may also add, we would use English for places in any part of the world, not just Kosovo. For example we have Munich although the endonym is München in standard German and Minga is local Austro-Bavarian dialect. Likewise in English we have Pristina for Kosovo which corresponds neither to Serbian Priština nor Albanian Prishtina. With the ugly political climate of Kosovo, the reliable sources (UN/OSCE publication) will today refer to a settlement in dual form such as Gnjilane/Gjilan or Glogovac/Drenas and these forms just won't suffice. Meanwhile the articles are all right, the propaganda element may form a part of the original draft but I believe some NPOV-editing can help smooth out a decent article. Tourism in Kosovo is a real thing and it cannot in any practical sense be merged with Tourism in Serbia, but I've noticed that many sources have originated from Albanian language text which is why we have seen Stjepan Mesiq (red link) for what should have been Stjepan Mesić. Not the end of the world as I said, just simple copy-editing will solve the problem. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed "English wikipedia", which is why the insistence on serbian variants of names is so baffling. If a place has a common name in English, we should use that. If it doesn't then we should use the most common local name, or the name preferred by the strongest sources; that's not an propaganda tool, it's best practice across the encyclopædia. Sometimes the Albanian variant of a Kosovo placename will be more widely used; sometimes not. If you know of anything that overrides our article title policy, I'd love to know. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Current article titles are established based on our WP:AT guideline. You should not seek for anything that overrides that, as it may be wrong. Therefore, i must insist on usage of article titles. Everything else is only POV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AT should apply to article titles (some articles should be moved to comply with it). I find that very hard to reconcile with your argument that using Albanian placenames (rather than Serbian) for Albanian-speaking places is "a propaganda tool". If there's established usage in English, that would be preferred, but english is not serbian. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, titles are COMMONNAME in English language medias. So, actally, current titles ARE English. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify the policy. Wikipedia does not care what language a place name is in. What the English language Wikipedia cares about is the principle of "recognizability" by English speakers. We determine our article titles by examining English language sources, and seeing what name they use to refer to the place. If they use more than one name, we look to see which name is more commonly used. What that means for your argument is this: if a significant number of English language sources refer to a place in Kosovo using a given name, so do we... we don't care whether that name was Albanian or Serbian in origin... we really are neutral on that question. We rise above such debates by using whatever name appears in the majority of English language sources.

Note... sometimes common usage in sources can change. And when that occurs, we change with it. There was a time when English language sources routinely called the city in China: "Peking", and if Wikipedia had been around back then, we would have done the same... today, the majority of sources call it "Bejing", and thus so do we. So... if you object to the fact that the name Wikipedia uses is Albanian or Serbian in origin... convince the sources (newspapers, map makers, scholars, etc.) to use whichever version you prefer. When/if the sources shift their usage, Wikipedia will be quite happy to follow suit (because we really don't care whether the name we use was Albanian or Serbian in origin). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if I can elaborate on Bobrayner's concern on why Albanian is considered a propaganda tool and the "name according to majority" argument. As the post above this says, Common English invariably comes first. However, no editor must ride the myth that anything is poorly sourced because there has been publication in English down the decades that have rendered certain names English. It just happens to be rare. But not as rare as one might imagine, Kosovo became world-famous during the 1998-1999 period in which time people that had never heard of this place before suddenly became familiar with Peć, Uroševac, Gnjilane, Podujevo and Mališevo - as indeed they did with the villages, even those not to contain a Slavophonic resident. Naturally things do change but it is very difficult to change terms interwoven into a publisher's idiom. I hope this answers the point. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoax Categories vs NPOV - Bat Creek inscription

The Wikipedia article on the controversial Bat Creek inscription is included in the Wikipedia categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. Although archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas of U. Ark. and Hebraist P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins argue that it is a fraud, it was found and certified as genuine by the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology's authoritative Mound Survey in 1889. This Mound Survey is still considered authoritative today by archaeologists such as Stephen Williams of Harvard and Kenneth Feder of Central CT State Univ. Furthermore, the Bat Creek inscription itself is accepted as genuine by the late Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis and NYU, by Prof Emer. (Archaeology) Robert Stieglitz of Rutgers, and by U. Iowa archaeologist Marshall McKusick. I have also supported its authenticity in two articles in Tennessee Anthropologist and Biblical Archaeology Review.

According to wp:Neutral Point of View, "Articles mustn't take sides." Furthermore, wp:Categories states that "Categories must maintain a NPOV". By including this article in these categories, Wikipedia's voice is used to endorse the position that this controversial artifact is a hoax. I had proposed on Talk:Bat Creek Inscription (at "Hoax Categories vs. NPOV") to remove the article from these three categories, but Wikipedia administrator Dougweller, who often posts there, believes it is a hoax and can presumably override me.

A further issue is that none of these three hoax categories explains the criteria for inclusion, as required at wp:Categories. A category like "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" would be fine, since indeed some authorities argue it is a fraud. Other artifacts, such as the AVM Runestone, Cardiff Giant, and Piltdown Man are clearcut hoaxes, so there is no need to eliminate these hoax categories altogether, provided they explained their criteria.

So should I go ahead and remove the article from these three categories, or wait for some kind of decision here? I've never done this before. (I'm not sure how to notify Dougweller with the provided template, since the user to be notified is not one of the fields, so I'll just let him know over on the Bat Creek Talk page.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is already being discussed over at the fringe theories noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to get a ruling on this here, on purely NPOV grounds. "Fringe Theories" is already a loaded term that prejudges the outcome. See WP:Label. HuMcCulloch (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, there is significant coverage of the POV that it is a hoax. While that may not be universally accepted, there is enough of it where the categorization serves as an appropriate navigational aid. One consideration is to place a hat or text within category pages like this to indicate that the pages listed have significant acceptance as hoaxes or forgeries. Location (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be equivalent to placing it in a category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity," but without the appearance of implying "Artifact of proven inauthenticity"? HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to creating Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity if there are enough articles to tag with it. Still, Category:Archaeological forgeries and Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, even though they seem to be mutually exclusive in this context, are both equally acceptable as navigational aids to people looking for information on those things. Are you in favor of removing one and keeping the other? Location (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking to remove Archaeological forgeries (along with the 2 other fraud categories), while retaining Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (and most others). If you or Dougweller or someone else wants to create "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" and include the page in question, I would have no objection. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand which three you wish to remove, but that is not my question. If the factual reference to Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is subject to similar dispute, why would you wish to retain that? Location (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:Label, relevant to "Fringe Theories" doesn't really go to the point it is supposed to. Scroll up 2 screens to "Contentious label". HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The presentation here and the discussions at the article talk page don't make much of a case for removal of the category. Seems like editors are having difficulty understanding NPOV and the other relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't think "Category:Suspected hoaxes" would be less overtly biased? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

One problem associated with implementing Category:Suspected hoaxes is that it still requires Wikipedians to evaluate the available information and determine whether something is a hoax or "merely" a suspected hoax. If there are two opposing views, does an article get labeled with both? Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity might work better if there is substantial debate between substantial numbers of academics, but (as Dougweller has pointed out below) that categorization can be troubling with subjects - and I'm not saying that this one of them - that have fringe adherents. Location (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a category such as "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" is that virtually all archaeological hoaxes have some adherents, as exemplified by the original poster here who has a major COI as an author of several articles on this subject. Another point mentioned at WP:Fringe is that categories are navigational aids. : "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." A defining characteristic of this topic is that mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. How would removing the category aid the purpose of categories? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, mainstream archaeological opinion is that there were no Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Celts, Phoenicians, etc in the Americas before the Vikings or Columbus. Most archaeologists don't see any point in commenting on any specific examples of hoaxes purporting to be evidence for such visits, so the vast majority of the material available is from fringe supporters. If these categories are to be removed from this article then the next step will be to virtually depopulate the 3 categories. I've just added the forgeries category to an obvious hoax, the Tucson artifacts. Are we going to remove it from that, from Ica stones which show men flying dinosaurs, from Newark Holy Stones, etc? These are all held to be genuine by some people, but I don't think that's a reason for removing a category. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be two different issues going on here. First, I don't see the problem with having an unequivocal "hoaxes" category. As several others have said, there are always going to be those who either don't get the message or who are unwilling to concede. And there are cases within the various fields where there is genuine and persistent disagreement among those whose opinion is worth something (see for instance the Secret Gospel of Mark, where there is ongoing conflict over whether it was a fabrication of Morton Smith or not). Perhaps those cases need to be categorized separately.

But second, the real dispute seems to be over the status of this artifact. I cannot see taking a report from 1889 as some sort of archaeological dogma, no matter what the repute of the reporter. All modern archaeological analysis, if I follow the article correctly, asserts that the stone is a fraud; if there is any remaining dispute, it is over exactly what the fraud was accomplishing. So I don't see any reason not to label this object as a definite hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Those whose opinion is worth something"... Geez, biased much? And this is the "NPOV" board! It seems you have a litmus test and the entire school of thought from authors willing to consider this artifact, has been written off by you as "unworthy" by that circular argument. That's not the same thing as honestly admitting to our readership that there really are other points of view out there that conflict with yours, that you don't seem willing to mention or perhaps afraid to mention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are new to Wikipedia, WP:WEIGHT is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality does not mean accepting every view as being equally valid. Mangoe was likely working off the assumption that everyone here was aware of that. Location (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not new. The point is, there ARE sources that consider these artifacts seriously, but some editors want the article to pretend as if they don't exist because they have concluded that those sources on the subject "don't count". What makes this a suspected hoax is that they have not PROVED it is a hoax, the entire argument that it is a hoax rests entirely on an "appeal to authority" of selected sources that meet the circular litmus test of agreeing it is a hoax. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll pose the same question to you: If we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed and not the other? Location (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Til's not new - first edit under the Til account is 26 April 2007, under the (still active) Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) this editor has been editing since 24 April 2005. I'm not convinced she is happy with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am a male! I have been online since 1990 but I first saw you in usenet right after Barry Fell passed away talking about that, and you have always been the internet's fiercest opponent of any consideration of the idea anyone could have crossed the oceans in boats before Christopher Columbus, except maybe Leif Ericson. So you're not new, either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I could go to just about any public library in the US and find umpteen of the books that tell people there are reasons to think other crossings may have occurred, so the opinion is not all that hard to find - even for people with no internet access. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Til has been defending this fringey material from criticism for a long time. Maybe there is "serious" belief that the Bat Creek stuff isn't a forgery, but if it is coming from the archaeological equivalent of Charles Berlitz, the only need we have of mentioning is to point it out as a widely believed error. Likewise, the legend passed around among Catholics that George Washington was baptized on his deathbed can be dismissed with litter or no comment, and cannot justify reclassifying him as even a possible Catholic. You, Til, are not the standard of proof for Bat Creek; the archaeologists are. There's no circularity here because we aren't selecting sources on the basis of whether they agree with the hoax evaluation, but on whether they have credentials which suggest that their opinion has weight. Indeed, the manifest problem is that the credentials of those who accept the object as claimed are being played up in order to fend off a negative evaluation and thus present a false appearance of substantive disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I still have yet to see any proof other than the usual "appeal to authority" of authors saying it is a hoax without demonstrating convincingly why it is one. Ridiculing the studies published that have given it actual attention, and coming up with endless ludicrous arguments by analogy seems to be the best you've got. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Til, if I turn off my "neutraliity" and start analyzing the arguments, I find that the case presented for a forgery is extremely strong. Away from Wikipedia, I am quite willing to stand on my own authority to interpret the works of the experts and dissenters. If you come up with a different interpretation, then in that office I think it reflects on you, not on them. McCulloch is, when all is said and done, an aficionado of crypto-archaeology, and he sits at the junction of notions that do not intersect other than their anti-establishment commitment to evidence of pre-Columbian Eurasian contact. My impression of all this evidence is that, if it makes a picture, it doesn't present the image of multiple glimpses of a single picture. But I also see that McCulloch tries to write as a technical person within the field, as many writers on fringe topics presume to do; for example, he goes on at length about the disputable "paleo-Hebrew" inscription. I'm not an expert on that, but the lay comparison afforded by the article leads me to accept that the craved characters can be readily explained as an erroneous imitation of the printed text also shown there. But more to the point, somewhere along the line I am going to be forced to rely someone's expertise, and having seen similar arguments made in areas where my personal expertise is stronger, I'm going to have to defer to archaeologists over an economist. And yes, obviously that's an appeal to authority, but then, so is using McCulloch. Versions of our article that use his work do, by the nature of the thing, appeal to his authority as an interpreter of the material. And just clicking to the main page of his website makes me reluctant to accept that appeal. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CATEGORIES: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Given that the article maintains a balance on this particular Smithsonian artifact and does not use Wikipedia's voice to pigeonhole it as a hoax, it strikes me as inappropriate for the categorization system to perform this back-door pigeonholing. (I don't know what a list article is, but this could be an option for those who want to classify it as a hoax.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There are references to support the addition. As I asked you previously, if we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed under the guise of neutrality and not the other? Location (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to challenge the Trans-oceanic contact category, that should be a separately considered question. I think tying the two together involves some kind of a leap in logic somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no "leap in logic". The two tags are mutually exclusive and this Rfc is asking us to pick one side over the other as an accurate reflection of the "truth". Location (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A category for 'suspected hoaxes' ie those that are not conclusively proven as hoaxes, would not be mutually exclusive with the other category and should work fine, be more neutral and accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed this point above. This would require Wikipedians to make a judgement on what is "conclusively proven". Location (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If there were a tag, "Conclusive proof of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact", I would agree that that would be equally inappropriate for this controversial artifact. But "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is just an umbrella that includes all discussion of whether there was or wasn't such contact. This is a straw-man. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You're asserting that Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is "just an umbrella" category for discussion about that subject, but that Category:Archaeological forgeries, Category:Hoaxes in the United States, etc. are not umbrella categories for discussions about those subjects. Is that correct? Location (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that inclusion in "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is judgmental about whether included items are valid or invalid, whereas inclusion in "Hoaxes in the US" etc. is, so there's quite a difference. The "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" category is not itself a venue for discussing this subject, but just a list of pages that report such discussion. HuMcCulloch (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to say that hasn't already been said. I see the various "hoax" categories as navigational aids for those seeking more information about articles that discuss related subjects. If you posted here wanting additional opinions on whether those categories are appropriate, then my opinion is that they are appropriate. I'm happy to sit back and see what other uninvolved editors have to say. Location (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Location on this. The comparison between the two categories is dead-on. "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" implies that there was a contact, and this is used as a category for the page even though the scholarly consensus overwhelmingly favors that the 'artifact' in question provides no evidence for such 'contact' (due to it being a hoax), but it is being used because it serves as an umbrella category, valuable to assist in finding claims of such contact. If an expression of an extreme minority interpretation can still serve as a useful category, then it can hardly be POV to use a category that represents the majority opinion of qualified scholars. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion is bogging down. I don't have any experience with WP disputes, but I gather from WP:Disputes that before requesting mediation, I should request a less formal third opinion from a disinterested volunteer editor. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anything else develops before proceding. HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

More than two editors are involved so you can't use 3O. Try posting an "official" Rfc on the article's talk page before mediation. Location (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I regard this as a dispute between myself and Dougweller. I indicated an intention to remove the Bat Creek inscription page from the three hoax/fraud categories unless there was an objection, and Doug, who had often contributed to the page in the past, objected. Then there was discussion on the Bat Creek talk page, and then further discussion here that involved additional parties, but the dispute is still just between myself and Doug Weller. (FYI, Doug and I have been going back and forth on this topic since the 1980s, on the Usenet sci.arch group!) HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, I object too. Now the dispute isn't just between you two. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:Request for Comments,discussion on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is an alternative to RfC, as it officially requests comments from users interested in NPOV issues. HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you regard this as a dispute between the you and Dougweller. That's a breach of WP:DR and WP:BATTLE, and ignores the purpose of this noticeboard, and might violate WP:CANVAS as well if all you're doing is trying to find support for your profession opinion with which you have a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Though I haven't edited the article in question, as far as conflict is concerned here I'm going to have to consider myself involved given the degree of my WP:FT/N involvement in this. I should have noticed the COI before, but there's really no way, HuMcCulloch, that you should be involved in directly editing an article to use your self-published works and letters as references. I just don't see how, when put to the test, there's going to be a consensus to use you as a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that this is an NPOV issue (or that editors involved in fringe issues automatically have a COI. Hu does have some published articles (although as I pointed out elsewhere Biblical Archeology isn't necessarily a reliable source, for any articles in that journal I'd look to see if the author was a RS). On the other hand, he still has a COI in that he is adding his own material. But that's not the main issue here, the issue is about categories, and I don't think that Hu is right about this. As has been said, categories are for navigational purposes, and people looking for anything considered to be an archeological forgery should be able to find it through that category, ditto the hoax categories. It's the articles themselves that need to meet NPOV, including WP:UNDUE. So long as they meet our policy there, the reader can determine for themselves whether they think it's a hoax, and I don't think that the fact that they found it through a category, or saw the category on the bottom of the page, is going to sway their opinion. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Doug and Hu neither have a neutral point of view, would it not be easier to remove both of them from editing the article? Hu is widely considered an expert on the subject, and his material needs to remain, but since it could be easily influenced by him, he should be removed. However, I believe Doug has a website on the matter as well, so he cannot be neutral. If Doug ever provides any published material that is of his own work that contributes, then it would be added just as equally to Hu's material that was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewaynebrock (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that this recommendations is your first and only edit, I doubt we will take it up. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Understandable Mangoe. Rude way to put it, but completely understandable. What is your suggestion to fix the COI?Dewaynebrock (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hu is widely considered an expert is he? Golly. I nothing about Doug's webside, but expressing opinions on it would not be a COI in itself, any more than expressing opinions here would be. I think it's inappropriate to go for dispute resolution, sinbce this is really a general not a specific issue. It does not apply to only this article. There are several possible resolutions. One would be the rename that has been suggested. The problem with that is that would be endless disputes about which works should be deemed to be "suspected" forgeries/fakes/frauds/hoaxes. Very few items are accepted by everyone to be fakes. Those that are are generally non-notable because of it, precisely because no-one cares about them. On the whole, I think people get far too worked up over categories. They are as has repeatedly been pointed out, navigational tools. They are not official declarations about the status of something. Many articles have several contradictory categories, which is perfectly fine. Their purpose is to group articles on a topic. The same is true of Wikprojects and some infoboxes. I've experienced many disputes about all sorts of related issues. Should Hitler be in the category "vegetarians", since some veggie activists have tried to deny it? Should peson X be included in a the "Category:LGBT history", since it's disputed whether he/she was anything but dead straight. In my experience the answer is almost always "yes". It doesn't matter if I think, say, Shakepseare was 100% stright. If an article on him discusses disputed sexuality then it should be in the category, because their whole function is to help people find articles on specific topics. Nothing more. They absolutely do not mean that the Wikpedian community have determined that something or someone is fake, gay, mentally ill or whatever. Paul B (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to have POVs, in fact it is very hard not to have one. It isn't editors that are meant to have a neutral point of views, it is articles and the way in which editors edit. We don't disqualify Christians from editing articles on Christianity, nor do we disqualify atheists. As for my website, it's a collection of articles at [13] and I haven't touched it for sometime. The site expresses my opinion and interests. I don't think it disqualifies me from working on fringe archaeology articles. I have however seen editors say that archaeologists who write books on fringe archeology are too biased to be used as sources, which is a sort of Catch 22. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The persistent problem I have every time I revisit this is that I cannot find anything that shows to me that McCulloch's position is given any degree of respect whatsoever within the archaeological community or indeed any scholarly community outside economics, where he's well-published. When I search, I keep getting presented with the same few letters to the editor and his self-published work, and the one BR reference. And Herschel Shanks has a history of entertaining amateur input in his journals to where I wouldn't automatically assume that appearance in their pages constituted notability. I therefore can't get past the problem that McCulloch's editing here is essentially self-promoting, because it's his work that he wants to use as a source. If we could find evidence that people in the field even thing of it as an interesting but ultimately wrong idea, I could give it more prominence, but I don't see that. And thus I cannot see letting his views stand in the way of identifying this as a hoax in the category structure, nor of making similarly strong statements in the article. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gunfight at the 3O Corral? On further reading of WP:DISPUTES, WP:MEDIATION doesn't look helpful, since it doesn't actually arbitrate the issue at hand. WP:ARBITRATION only applies to conduct issues. So, Doug, I propose that we resolve the issue between the two of us with a gentleman's agreement that we will solicit a Third Opinion and abide by whatever opinion is given. Mangoe and Agricolae may agree to go along, or may raise the issue again should I win and delete the categories, but that doesn't stop us from resolving our own dispute in this manner.

I'm not sure how the mechanics work. The 3O appears to be a volunteer drawn from some sort of pool. I suggest we request that the 3O not be anyone who has posted on the Bat Creek page or on the discussion here or on talk:Bat Creek, but I guess there is no way to exclude lurkers who have been following the discussion but not participating. Have you ever done one before? Can we get it inserted into this section so that everyone interested can follow whatever the procedings are? The 3O would of course be referred to the discussion here and on the Bat Creek talk page, which pretty much covers all the issues already. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get the point that I am arguing that this is not a NPOV issue but a categories issue, and if we remove navigational categories in this way we make them useless. It isn't an issue that applies only to this specific article. It has been called a hoax and a forgery (and a fraud) by clearly reliable sources and I'm sure you agree that's the case. Removing categories that lead people to articles that are believed to be hoaxes/forgeries by mainstream specialists would be wrong. And maybe, ironically, violating NPOV by denigrating the mainstream view. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show that Dougweller has declined my offer to arbitrate the dispute between the two of us using Wikipedia's WP:Third Opinion process. It would be unseemly to enter into an endless edit war on the Bat Creek inscription page itself, so I'll just declare a moral victory and leave the matter with that. HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, 3O wouldn't apply anyway as that there are certainly more than two editors involved in this dispute now. Location (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think for NPOV we should note that the other side declares a moral victory too! Paul B (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article title: Bangladesh atrocities, genocide, or war crimes?

A controversial move/edit was made to 1971 Bangladesh genocide was made on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. An earlier discussion on the talk page seemed to produce no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move? See difference [14]

What is the most neutral title? Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes"? Until this issue is resolved, I've questioned the neutrality of the article and posted a template on the front page.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. "War Crimes" makes more sense, I do believe. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

According to academia there is a consensus that this was a genocide. And per common name the article title needs to reflect that. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What discussion would that be? There are none in the sources which I presented. Please provide sources which say there is a question over this being a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a requested move discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed here.)--regentspark (comment) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To move this in a more general direction... Crime is a legal term... and I don't think we should entitle any article with the word "crime" unless a court has ruled that a crime has actually been committed. This goes for war crimes as well as other forms of crime. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking Questia -- "genocide" and "crime" are quite infrequently applied to the civilian deaths during the Bangladesh independence war. The article can contain the terms ascribed to those using them, but the title should be as absolutely neutral in tenor as possible. I suggest Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war. Similar results for Highbeam, with "genocide" being very far down the list, and "war crime" also fairly rare. See also [15]. I suggest this Columbia University Press book is likely RS for asseeting, in fact, that "genocide" etc. are used by " ' the 'liberation literature' of Bangladesh ... in blissful disregard of the need to provide substantiation." This is a farirly strong statement in a reliable source, and suggests that Wikipedia ought not use such terms in any title. Collect (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "genocide" is misleading because it implies racial motivation for the killings. TFD (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not just racial. From our article, "Genocide is 'the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group'". Apteva (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Book of Leviticus

There is a content dispute at Book of Leviticus summarized in this talk page discussion, that has arrived at an impasse, largely due to the small number of participants. The dispute is about adding a small amount of content to the article mentioning that the Book of Leviticus lays out proscriptions against homosexuality, and to a lesser extent, does so while permitting slavery. The content in question can be seen here here where it was removed by User:PiCo. The content needs some wordsmithing and better sources, but that's the gist of it.

The discussion began with objections to the content being added to the lede (first revert here), but now it seems there are objections to having in the article at all. Although I think the talk page discussion is self-explanatory, I think there are two schools of thought at opposition.

• The content doesn't belong because the passages in Leviticus that refer to homosexuality (and slavery?) are very minor in comparison to the rest of the biblical text. As such, it is trivial and should be omitted. Also, it is suggested that the scope of the article is limited to an iron age theological perspective.

and, conversely

• The content has been the subject of substantial scholarly study and media reporting, and thus should be added so that the article represents all major points of view per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

Of course, I will let the other involved editors speak for themselves. Any help with this would be appreciated. - MrX 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

COMMENTS

• Without consulting any sources, these proscriptions are possibly the most oft cited from Leviticus. Surely those in favor of inclusion have found source commentary? The bible is full of contradictions, so articles should reflect most interpretations, both modern and historical.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I guess my main concern was that the information was being added to the lead. It would probably be better indirectly referenced and linked to a related article like Homosexuality in the Bible#Leviticus 18 and 20. meshach (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was concerned about the material going in the lead or in the section on themes - homosexuality takes up 2 verses of Leviticus, it isn't a theme. Maybe in the "modern" section (the section that includes headings on Judaism and Christianity) PiCo (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are any number of highly regarded reference books, like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdmen's Encyclopedia of the Bible, the most recent edition of the Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, and others, which have good, highly-regarded, substantial articles relating to the Book of Leviticus, and this isn't counting reference works relating to the various faiths that hold Leviticus in high regard. I certainly think checking those reference sources, and seeing how much if any weight they might give these matters, would be one of the best ways to determine how much weight and prominence to give such material in our own main article on the Book of Leviticus. John Carter (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like others above, my prime concern was about this going straight in the lead. I have no problem with a section in the article saying that in the present-day this is a part of Leviticus that is particuarly often cited (if sources can be found that make that statement). Any such section should probably also state that this is not a major theme in the totality of Leviticus. Jheald (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• This content I believe should be in the page. It is one of the most used parts of the bible in modern media and culture, good or bad. It is more than notable and relevant to the page. I have no problem with it not being in the lead but to remove it entirely would be a NPOV issue. 216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with those who say this belongs in the article, but not in the lede. What the lede should note is that Leviticus has been cited (throughout history) in connection to numerous political and social issues. Save the specifics of what those issues are (or have been) and how Leviticus is (or has been) interpreted in relation to them for the main text. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that the material needs to be mentioned, but in a balanced context that goes beyond political prooftexting. Emphasizing it in the lead is probably WP:UNDUE. The relationship of Leviticus to Christian moral thought is particularly complex and cannot be addressed without bias in a one sentence insertion about a couple of subjects. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. This is about Book of Leviticus, not Book of Leviticus as it pertains to homosexuality and slavery where inclusion in the lead would be paramount.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with many others here: it belongs in the article but not in the lede. I can see how someone hearing of Leviticus for the first time in the context of "zomg, Bible supports slavery and death to homosexuals!" might think that it's the most important thing about Leviticus. And those who have studied it as scripture might think "what, that's just a couple of verses in a big text, and nobody takes that part seriously in modern times." But the modern treatment and use of Leviticus in the first context has become notable, so it does need to be mentioned in the article — both the popular political anti-bible treatment and the explanation of scholars who explain or defend it should be covered. First Light (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to near unanimity for including this content with due balance, but without including the slavery argument, and without including it in the lede. Does anyone disagree with that conclusion? If not, I move we close this and call it a win for Wikipedia. - MrX 02:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure that we should omit the fact that Leviticus was once used to justify slavery... it may not be something that has impact in today's social/political discussions, but it definitely factored into debates prior to the US Civil War. It would make for a very good example of how interpretations of Leviticus have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I also support that the material might well qualify for inclusion in the article, but not in the lead. The concern about slavery is a good one, and I certainly can see Leviticus, and possible Philemon, being discussed in an article about the Bible and slavery, for instance. I also suppose it might be potentially significantly discussed enough in the leading sources on this topic in general, like the ones I indicated above. I acknowledge I haven't checked them yet, because, honestly, for whatever reason my computer's internet has been futzy the past couple of days, but I hope to try to check maybe tomorrow, and, the internet willing, I can try to indicate what level of discussion the topic receives in them. John Carter (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I don't think the Leviticus article should go into heavy detail on either the homosexuality or the slavery issue. What I would suggest is a relatively short section about how Leviticus has been cited (and mis-cited) over the years to justify various socio-political opinions... and I think both would make good examples of that phenomenon. Probably no more than a few sentences on each. Blueboar (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing is synthesis because it implies a connection between support for slavery and opposition to homosexuality, which is not found in the sources provided. The subtext is that opposition to homosexuality is just as bad as support for slavery. Someone with an opposite opinion could easily write, "The Democratic Party has taken a variety of positions from support of slavery to legalization of homosexuality." TFD (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cobo Center

User:MaryKlida who works for Cobo Convention Center as Marketing and Communications Manger is removing factual information. Factual information concerning the death of George Overman Jr at Cobo Center and later lawsuit is based on newspaper articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Text in question: On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall.Codepro (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've issued 3rr warnings to both editors involved in this conflict, and that's reflective of my take on the issue: you're both doing this wrong. Codepro, you're adding a large paragraph about a death to an article to which it's only tangentially related. It may be valid to add a short mention of the case, but not the large disproportionate coverage you're attempting to add. At the same time, Mary is wholesale-reverting your edits in furtherance of her conflict of interest, which is also not ok. Mary has responded to my warning by saying she will be more cognizant of our policies. Please remember to notify Mary (not the article itself) that you have brought this conflict here.. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter states User:Codepro is adding a large paragraph about a death. User:Fluffernutter reduced the large paragraph and added the following comment

"reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." So why does User:Fluffernutter still consider it an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious" 4 references were used. 2 of the references are linked to google newspaper archives, 1 reference is linked to google books, and 1 reference is linked to www.detroityes.com because it contained a comment from a user regarding the death of George Overman Jr. www.detroityes.com reference can be removed because it no longer relevant based on changes User:Fluffernutter made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

www.detroityes.com reference has been removed from Cobo Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated in comment "...Post also disrupts timeline of history section..." Post has been moved up in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that citation of a lawsuit against the city of Detroit belongs on their Wiki page, not Cobo Center's. Also, anyone can file a lawsuit, and the citation of a 45 year old lawsuit is only historically relevant with information about the verdict and outcome, which is not included. I would submit, therefore, that the post is not relevant to the history of the city or the center. The City of Detroit has had countless lawsuits. They are all not relevant to its history in an encyclopedia. I ask for a Wiki administrator to clarify Wiki policy on this.

The lawsuit involved Cobo Hall, not Detroit city hall. I believe the event is relevant even today because it raises questions concerning the security situation at Cobo Center. For instance what changes to the security situation if any have occurred at Cobo Center since this event? Events like this are shown to have Historic recurrence.Codepro (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

[User:Codepro|Codepro]] (talk): The last two paragraphs of the history section in the article should clear this notion up for you. the City of Detroit no longer owns and operates Cobo Center, leaving any chance of historical occurrence of the same situation unlikely.

(cite: Today, Cobo Center is owned (under a 30-year capital lease) and operated by the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (DRCFA))

The security situation at Cobo Center is relevant today as it was back then regardless if DRCFA or City of Detroit is involved.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proof of improvement of operations can be found in the last line of the History section: (The success of this new contract is seen in the statement made by the NAIAS (North American International Auto Show, the center's largest show) after the 2011 auto show: “The ongoing changes and renovations we will see at Cobo Center under the DRCFA and SMG will keep our collective teams making noted championship runs for years to come.” On January 5, 2012, the NAIAS and Cobo Center signed an unprecedented 5-year contract to host the auto show in Detroit through 2017.")

Personally, that sounds like an advertisement (i.e. "...championship runs..." The sentence does not mention anything regarding the security situation at Cobo Center.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you do not agree, I will request mediation. Thanks. User:MaryKlida

In addition, as MacPro was identifying your original links as potentially malicious, I would make sure that they are not, for your own security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the reference link User:MaryKlida is referring to is www.detroityes.com. That reference has been removed. All other references for this post link to google newpaper/book archivesCodepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You new links of these articles seem fine, but I will again submit that they are irrelevant to Cobo Center as only the mention of the death applies. The lawsuit was with the city, the articles are do not cite verdict or outcome, and there for they hold no weight. In my opinion, the articles are not notable or historically relevant.

The lawsuit involved Cobo Hall and the people responsible for managing it at the time.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "...There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious. I clean up the best I can.." Instead of removing the reference that she mentions, she decided to remove the entire post.Codepro (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the way you entered your additional information, I could not edit without deleting. There was a great deal of code in the links that was extraneous. For reasons cited above, I contest the entire edition.

There was no great deal of code. The original post contained 3 sentences and 6 references.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that Codepro has again added copy relating to the death (15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died). As he was instructed prior to remove this reference about the death, I would ask that it is again removed by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was never instructed by anyone to remove the reference about the death.Codepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In response, I will remind: "Codepro, you're adding a large paragraph about a death to an article to which it's only tangentially related. It may be valid to add a short mention of the case, but not the large disproportionate coverage you're attempting to add."

Yes and User:Fluffernutter reduced the large paragraph and added the following comment "reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." I agreed with User:Fluffernutter changes.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also see that Codepro has entered the previous links as articles on the Cobo Center page. Request that they be removed, and placed on the City of Detroit page if determined that they are historically relevant. All refer to an ongoing scandal with the city, not the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the references refer to any ongoing scandal with City of Detroit.Codepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Posts from User:MaryKlida on Cobo Center do not include references and are potentially biased since she works as Marketing and Communications Manger for Cobo Convention CenterCodepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it more ethical to post as who I am, than to hide behind a random username. I always keep the integrity of the article and the Detroit community, both, in mind.

You have proven to hide you identity as you have not properly signed any of your post on this noticeboard. Integrity? Suppressing historical fact?Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the statement "...I find it more ethical to post as who I am, than to hide behind a random username..." is a personal attack on me. It's Defamation and it's meant to hurt my credibility as a Wikipedia editor.Codepro (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have added numerous links and tags to the article. I ask that you cease and desist until we can have this issue mediated. Thank you.

I didn't add any links, I moved a orphaned reference regarding Cobo $299M revamp and associated it with relevant text and removed a missing image. User:Fluffernutter stated on your talk page "...Please also be aware that your position with the Cobo Center means your editing on this topic should be more limited than it otherwise would. You do not have authority over the article, nor do you have an exemption from our usual policies, and you must be cautious about whether your edits are seeking to improve the encyclopedia, or just your employer's image. Conflict-of-interest editing can become disruptive, and if that becomes the case you can be blocked for it alone..."Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Codepro, this is almost entirley unreadable. You appear to have added your signature repeatedly, and cut-and-pasted text from somewhere. The result is useless and impossible to follow. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I cannot see how or why an incident that occurred outside building on the April 20, 1967 is really relevant to the article at all. As for COI, there are some grounds for thinking that this might apply to Codepro too, given his tendency to list the achievements of members of the Overman family. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I added my signature to the statements that I made. The incident occurred on Cobo Hall property. The current text does not list any achievements of the Overman family.Codepro (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall.Codepro (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The current text was redacted by other editors. in any case my point was about your potential COI, not the current text. The text has already been provided, so repeating it serves no purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The information was taken directly from the newspaper archives. User:Fluffernutter stated in a comment "reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." which I agreed with.Codepro (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor recently attempted to open up as case at WP:DRN naming this noticeboard as the locus of the dispute. I closed the case; as it clearly states at the top of the DRN page, DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That's a new one! MaryKlida opened up a new WP:DRN case and named me as one of the disputing parties, despite my only involvement being a procedural close at DRN. If this sort of behavior persists, someone may want to bring it up at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my breach of protocol. I understood Mediation and Arbitration as other forms of dispute resolution, not noticeboard discussions. As you have cleared up, if noticeboards are considered to be a dispute resolution forum, are we restricted to discussing neutral point of view in this forum? Are there time limits to the discussion if not resolved? Can we request that other, more experienced Wikipedia editors give input? If so, how? We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere in this forum. I would appreciate any and all assistance. --MaryKlida (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal discussion is only possible if editors choose to participate. This is a relatively informal board for discussion of neutrality issues designed to generate useful reflection on the problem and achieve (or at least estimate) consensus. If this 1967 incident was a significant event in the history of the area then, IMO, it should be included, especially if it had consequences, say, for local policing, surveillance of the building or whatever. Likewise if it is representative of problems at the time, or ongoing issues, it might merit mention. I have seen no evidence yet that this is the case. Discussion here should be restricted to NPOV, yes. There is no definite time limit. You can ask at relevant Wikiprojects for input. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My response. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Codepro, give the responses of Paul Barlow and Guy Macon, I would ask that you consider voluntarily removing the warnings on the Cobo Center page and your info about the Overman incident.

What you refer to as warnings are actually templates and are meant to attract the attention of editors so the issues mentioned hopefully can be resolvedCodepro (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been working to provide reference material for the statements that you noted needed citation, and removed others that you might find offensive. Other than that, all I can do is assure you that I do strive to maintain a neutral point of view. On the other hand, your insistence on including the one sided and partial information on this incident leaves your neutrality in question, and you have not yet responded to this. Given your response, I will determine if a request for mediation is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKlida (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a neutral outsider... on reading the article, my first reaction to this paragraph was: "Huh? Why the article mentioning this?" My second reaction was: "and why is the article mentioning it in this section?"... It struck me as a complete non-sequitor that had nothing to do with what the rest of the section was talking about. I think part of the problem is that the incident is mentioned without any surrounding context. I gather the intent is to highlight ongoing safety concerns... if so, then there should be a section discussing those ongoing safety concerns. If not, then I am not sure one stabbing (and the resulting law suit) is really relevant enough to mention. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned because it's based on historic facts and pertains to the security situation at Cobo Center. I agree it could be located in another section. There are number of things that don't belong in the History section, like for example the seating capacity of Joe Louis Arena.Codepro (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I saw this issue at the DRN noticeboard. The material is not appropriate for the Cobo Center article, unless there is some specific emphasis placed on the incident by the sources. For instance:

• Did the lawsuit result in a major financial judgment against the Center?
• Does the incident get mentioned in any sources which describe the Center's history?
• Did the incident cause the Center, at the time, to undertake a major change in its policies?
• Did the incident recently get revived in the news for some reason?
• Is there a source that says there is a pattern of unsafe incicents at the Center, and this murder is one of them?

Barring sources which demonstrate some strong nexus to the center, this looks like a run-of-the mill crime that happened near the Cobo Center. There must be hundreds of crimes that happen near major facilities, but it is not encyclopedic to list them. And it is certainly not neutral to select a single murder case and insert it in the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the stabbing material from the article because it is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE policy. If someone can find some sources that connect the stabbing to the center in some significant way (see suggestions above), it can be re-added. But a mere lawsuit by the victims father, 40 years ago, that never had a published outcome ... that is not sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On a procedural note: user CodePro requested that the [second] DRN case on this topic be closed, because there was an on-going discussion here at NPOVN (which makes sense: we can't have two parallel discussions going at once). The DRN case has been closed. Another DRN or RFC could be created in the future, if necessary. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq I feel this article has multiple violations of the NPOV policy. Several headings like "manufactured evidence" and "A letter concocted by the CIA" are obviously one-sided. Most claims are missing sources. The "Government statements that set the stage for war" section seems to have just been copied and pasted from outside Wikipedia. The article also has many grammatical errors. There seems to be little sourced and neutral information in the article, I would propose deletion in its entirety but could not find a criteria that it met. Judging from the Talk page, it's had NPOV problems brought up before and has had no responses to the latest discussion of NPOV on the Talk page, which was made in 2010. The proposer of discussing the NPOV issues of the article received no responses and is an IP address that hasn't had Wikipedia activity in nearly 3 years. --Padenton (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Edited: --Padenton (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you seeking our permission? If so, you don't need it. An AFD nomination is often a good way to draw attention to a problematic article... all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to "rescue" it... and some of them may actually help you to fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the worst excesses - the POV was blatant, along with actual misuse of sources (MSNBC referred to Suskin's opinions which became incontrovertable fact in this article, as one example. Basically based on a single book, which makes it a tad iffy from the start. Collect (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Cleaned up" as substance dependence recovery reference

There are dozens of articles referring to both real and fictitious individuals in substance abuse recovery as having "cleaned themselves up". A few examples are included below. Though it is in common usage, this phrase has a pejorative connotation, implying that the opposite of a sober individual is a dirty one. This does not reflect the nature of substance dependence as a lifelong disease which can include an ongoing cycle of recovery and relapse as described in the Substance Dependence entry. These references should be re-written more literally to describe these individuals as having "stopped using drugs/alcohol".

"Lil' Fly (1994–1995) - Was booted off the label by Paul & Juicy because of a drug habit, He cleaned himself up and changed his alias to Playa Fly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotize_Minds

"Having lost everything (save for the PPAD club), as well as all his money, Noah descended into a drunken depression that led to reckless driving charges and other acts which almost cost him Donna's love, before he cleaned himself up and focused on running the PPAD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_characters

"His life was characterized by alcohol and drug abuse, but in 1981 an American Indian, Lewis Sawaquat, introduced him to his Indian heritage and he cleaned himself up." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Plamondon

"But, after cleaning himself up in 2008, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis became a collaborative and creative unit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustfluence (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up

We are approaching the early screening and release dates for the second of Eric Merola's homages to the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as ever, in lieu of published peer-reviewed and replicated scientific evidence, we have advertorial and attacks on critics. There's a whole section devoted to teh evil skeptics, who it seems came into being solely to suppress Burzynski's miracle cancer cure and who allegedly harass the patients Burzynski uses as a human shield against criticism. All bollocks, of course, but expect the usual flood of clueless newbies zealous to "correct" our bias towards the consensus view. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-union organizations in the United States

Anti-union organizations in the United States appears at first glance to be quite POV in nature, to make unsourced statements about groups which might not be NPOV, and to use colourful language to make its points. (The brief nod to union rights didn't last. In the late 1970s the NAM "was so confident in the appeal of its anti-union position that it no longer bothered to hide behind the euphemisms.") I think a few eyes on this "article" would help in making it into a real article instead of a set of what appear to be polemics. Collect (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

Requesting independent editors review the recent removal of content from the lede of Obsession. A new editor has stripped the material out three times; I reverted twice, hence I'm involved and would prefer others take a look. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Goldman Band's demise

Hello. As many of you know, the Goldman Band ceased operations in 2005. The article on the subject has some issues, especially with regards to reliable sourcing, verifiability, and what I believe to be its neutrality. Specifically, I am concerned about the statement, "There is ongoing debate as to the real cause of the organization's demise, with the Board of Directors on one side and a group of long-time band members and their union reps on the other," and some time ago, I tagged it as it did not include a citation. The demise has been disputed on the talk page and on the article ([16], [17], [18], [19]), but no proper discussion on the talk page was going on there. Today, I added the NY Times source, which details the Band's demise. Another reliable source can be found here, which details how the band got shut down. It would be good if this article could have some attention from neutral editors. Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis and the pseudoscience category

There is an issue as to whether putting psychoanalysis in the pseudoscience category would be an issue of NPOV. As far as I can tell, if reliable sources criticize an article for being pseudoscience it should be listed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo is currently refusing to respect WP:BRD on this and has not used the talk page to make a case. He has not listed reliable sources to support his view. In any disputed issue we have to look to the balance of what the sources say, and in any event editors should respect the use of the talk page. Not the first time we have seen this combative and game playing attitude from this editor ----Snowded ^TALK 09:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not about user behavior (for which I did go to talk (diff) and did add another RS (diff)) and so far as I can tell BRD favors my position at this point. But the point is even if a single reliable source accuses it of pseudoscience it should go into the category. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen that "single reliable source" rule before and in many another discussion a balance is required. Your diff is just a statement that you are right, you are not engaging on talk and you are edit warring so it may become a behaviour issue. However lets see if other editors agree with the "single source" idea. If so there are going to be a lot of other articles to be changed :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There is obviously more than one RS saying that in the article but regardless I don't see it bringing about a large change. Very few science related topics have RSs accusing it of being a pseudoscience at all which is what makes it significant. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Then show them on the talk page. We should note that the advocates of CBT (and you have been one) take this particular line about psychoanalysis and its not without controversy. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a stroll through Category:Pseudoscience, and what I notice is that literally every article I saw is on a subject that is widely recognized as pseudoscience. For the purpose of consistency with how the category is used, it seems that a small if significant accusation that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience should not necessarily place it in that category. To quote from the category itself, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth). The pejorative term itself is contested by various groups for various reasons." Again, I don't think psychoanalysis fits the bill here. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll list the overwhelming sources later but even a few seem to fit the bill. Compare the Evolution and intelligent design articles, in the former there are none while in ID there's only a few sources and it seems to be that way for all the articles. CartoonDiablo (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the number of sources that matters, but the prominence of that viewpoint in the scientific community. You only need a few for ID because literally zero mainstream publications think ID is actual science. For psychoanalysis, on the other hand, there is an entire body of mainstream science that treats it as something real. So it's not a matter of showing that you have any number of sources that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. You need to show it's the major viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My statement is here. I think this category is highly POV. Not only in this article. It displays a narrow unterstanding of philosophy of science. CartoonDiablo is a user I can't take seriously anymore. He fights the psychoanalysis by using dreadful arguments and reveals a minor understanding of scientiffic fields and the wikipedia. I think, he should banned for this an other POV-wars. --WSC ^® 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience

Scientific sources that considered the field pseudoscience:

• Karl Popper (based on secondary analysis of his views) (1990)
• Steven Pinker (1997) How The Mind Works
• Kevin B. MacDonald (1996) Psychoanalysis as religion, cult, and political movement
• Noam Chomsky (2003) Interview
• Stephen Jay Gould (1981) The Mismeasure of Man
• John F. Kihlstrom (1999) Is Freud Still Alive? No, Not Really
• Robert F. Bornstein (American Psychological Association) (2005) - "The Dependent Patient: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment"
• Hans Eysenck (1985) Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire

Scientific sources that considered Freudian theory pseudoscience but that it was useful in appropriating concepts for modern usage.

• Drew Western (1998) "The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a Psychodynamically Informed Psychological Science"
• Jason and Greenberg (1996) "Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and therapy"

CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, I had a lot of patients with you but your distortion of facts is unbareble. I don't deny that psychoanalysis is called pseudoscience by considerable sources. I criticize the use of a catagory inside of wikipedia. Do you understand the difference? --WSC ^® 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a question of the category, not the article. The category can be nominated for deletion but it should not be prevented from being used because you disagree with it especially when you agree that considerable sources call it as such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Even this point is unclear! Grünbaum deny the pseudoscientific status of psychoanalysis. He described also the falsifiability of it. Do you now want do deciede who's right? Popper or Grünbaum? But wait! You want! Right? --WSC ^® 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And several of those sources are polemical in nature - Pinker is subject to multiple attacks as is Chomsky from Cognitive Science and elsewhere. Its reviews of the field that would need, not protagonists. Academic anyway no editorial support for CD so we might as well close ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They are reliable sources for science. The one essay was even reprinted in the The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, this is beyond clear. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't find any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us. --WSC ^® 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, given normal cycles CBT will end up there soon enough and then we can see if there is a consistent position ----Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First I'd like an apology for WSC's derisive comment, second it's even in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Detailed analysis

Just so you all know where I am coming from: My personal opinion on psychoanalysis is that it is clearly a pseudoscience, though for historical and sociological reasons it is not generally recognised as such. At this point it is not clear what will happen. There are some encouraging signs that it might mature into a proper science, but it is certainly possible that it will be generally seen as a pseudoscience before that happens.

But here is my analysis as to the pseudoscience category and the psychoanalysis article:

• Pseudoscience is relevant to psychoanalysis, as there is mainstream criticism of psychoanalysis making the connection, and even some of the criticism coming out of psychoanalsysis itself just stops short of using the word. (I am thinking of de:Martin Altmeyer.)
• Conversely, though not particularly important for the present question, psychoanalysis is relevant to pseudoscience as one of the original theories that Popper tried to distinguish from proper science when he coined the term, and one of the standard test cases for the various precise definitions of pseudoscience. (Each time someone comes up with a new definition, people immediately write about the question: Where does it put psychoanalysis?)
• Psychoanalysis is listed under List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and ever since that article was renamed from its original title "List of pseudosciences", there has been little controversy about that.
• Psychoanalysis#Criticism cites Popper and Cioffi:

• "Karl Popper argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted; that is, they are not falsifiable."
• "Frank Cioffi, author of Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, cites false claims of a sound scientific verification of the theory and its elements as the strongest basis for classifying the work of Freud and his school as pseudoscience."

• Psychoanalysis is mentioned as an example of pseudoscience given by Popper, in Pseudoscience#Falsifiability.
• From WP:Categories#Articles: "Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
  A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession [...]"
• From WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to [...] categories [...] as well."
• From WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. [...] Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." I wouldn't call the statement that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience biased, but the principle is generally applied to statements that are not uncontroversial in the most appropriate mainstream sources. That's clearly the case here. Attribution is essentially impossible with a categorisation. Specification or substantiation could theoretically be done via an appropriate subcategory such as "unfalsifiable theories". Neither seems to be a reasonable option here, so the categorisation is not possible. (This interpretation of WP:NPOV is in line with the quotation above from WP:Categories.)
• WP:NPOV#Fringe theories and pseudoscience refers to WP:FRINGE#Pseudoscience and other fringe theories for detailed guidance. It roughly classifies questionable theories as follows: 1. Obvious pseudoscience, 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, 3. Questionable science, 4. Alternative theoretical formulations.
  Topics of types 1 and 2 can be put into Category:Pseudoscience. ("1. [...] may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." "2. [...] may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.") Topics of types 3 and 4 can not be put into the category. ("3. [...] should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.")
  This classification dates back to an old Arbcom decision (2006) which was also explicit that psychoanalysis falls under type 3 and was a bit more explicit than the present text that type 3 topics can't be put into the category: "Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." See WP:ARBPS#Questionable science. This case is dated but still highly relevant: What (not) to put into the pseudoscience category was one of the key questions.

Conclusion: Though the criticism of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is highly notable and relevant, according to long-standing principles which were developed with an eye to this special case, this is not sufficient to put its article into the pseudoscience category. Hans Adler 12:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've read through List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Psychology this list. And I'm horrified. The Attachment Theory in Psychology is called pseudoscience (it's Attachement Therapy). The source are stage magician and other sources are websites as [quackwatch]. This is pure POV and no serious basis for discussion. I put a POV-box in this naive "List" and hope, no one will read this nonsens ever.

Futher it's true that Popper called psychoanalysis a pseudoscience. It is one of his examples of pseudoscience and falsifiability. But Adolf Grünbaum, another main character of critical rationalism and the main critic of psychoanalysis, described, that psychoanalysis is very well falsifiable. But that is not the point. The point is, that these category is nonsense. Other philosophical schools, as positivism or analytical philosophy also use terms like pseudoscience with other requirements. So pseudoscience arn't well defined. Futher pseudoscience just testify that some schools of philosophy would call a discipline a pseudoscience. Not all of them. Other philosophers, like Theodor Adorno grouded there theories on psychoanalysis, for example. Futher you always need a well established source to call a discipline a pseudoscience. Let's have a look at the category:pseudoscience and pick a example. Theres Attachment Therapy in it and it is explict called pseudoscience in the article. I don't think, that Attachement Therapy is a good therapy, but to call it pseudosciens you need more than a textbook from other psychologist like the article does. [20] They use the term pseudoscience very naive and don't go back to the philosophical roots of this theory. In other cases like E-rays no serious scientist or philosopher ever gives himself the trouble to estimate that theory. Maybe some sceptics? E-ray arn't pseudoscience e-rays are pure nonsense. Wikipedians estimated it as pseudoscience. Thats WP:OR. And the category is full of such OR. --WSC ^® 15:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The list certainly has problems. Not the least of them – and it has this in common with the pseudoscience category – is that its motivation and to some extent actual use (branding topics as pseudoscience) differs significantly from the justification for its existence (encyclopedic information about the pseudoscience debate, a legitimate philosophical topic). There is quite a bit of POV pushing going on there, both to include topics that don't really belong there or paint them more negatively than appropriate (currently this problem seems to exist with hypnosis and probably also hypnotherapy), and to exclude topics that clearly belong on the list.

I basically agree with your concerns about sourcing claims about relatively notable topics to non-scholarly anti-pseudoscience/anti-fringe activists. For little discussed topics this is sometimes unavoidable, and so it is general practice to use such activist sources when most editors basically agree that the activists are right. However, some editors take this as a licence to use such weak sources to criticise highly notable topics that are not so criticised by the scholarly mainstream, or if they have been, in preference to better sources. That's a problem.

Your example, attachment therapy: That field clearly has serious problems of an ethical nature. E.g., the interpretation of attachment therapy by a group of German therapists apparently amounted to serious physical abuse of autistic children. I don't know enough about the field to say that it's definitely not a pseudoscience, but (1) such ethical issues are orthogonal to a characterisation of the field as pseudoscience, yet professionaly anti-fringers tend to use pseudoscience as a generalised accusation against everything that is somehow questionable, and (2) it takes proper scholarship to determine whether the problems pertain to the field or only to some of its proponents/practicians. Therefore I agree that the sourcing for this entry is too weak.

Regarding psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience, and also your general comment that we should not have such a list because pseudoscience does not have a generally agreed, perfect, objectively verifiable definition: The last point is clearly an example of the continuum fallacy. And as to unfalsifiability of psychoanalysis, that's not something that we can consider objectively wrong and the accusation is highly notable. Therefore we can and should report the accusation, regardless of whether others contradicted this (which we could also report, though). And IMO psychoanalysis, in spite of some claims that are falsifiable in principle, has severe tendencies of improper immunisation against falsification. What is more, Grünbaum's book "Is Psychoanalysis a Pseudo-Science?" is part of a fruitful philosophical debate on whether psychoanalysis is to be characterised as a pseudoscience. That's more than enough to satisfy the inclusion standards of a list of topics that have been notably so characterised. And as a result of that debate, we now have more refined definitions of pseudoscience, some of which do cover psychoanalysis. Hans Adler 19:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You said it! Pseudoscience is a combat term. And I don't want to defend Attachment Therapy as method. But that doesn't justify the catagory. As I try to describe CartoonDiablo above, the status of Psychoanalysis isn't cleare. Even in critical rationalism. Grünbaum is a important representative of it but also disagree with Popper (and nevertheless not gentle with psychoanalysis). Such issues arn't solvable by using categories. It's not a benifit to esthablish catagories which are not able to give an overview in a debate but distort a issue. Thats why the catagory isn't usefull. --WSC ^® 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The category makes sense for topics such as Time Cube or crystal healing. There is a well established demarcation line between what goes in and what doesn't: cold fusion clearly doesn't belong, homeopathy barely belongs, and psychoanalysis doesn't. Pseudoscience being a fighting word, the category is asking for trouble. But on Wikipedia that's rarely considered sufficient reason to suppress an article or category. Hans Adler 20:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesen't make sence anyway. Crystal healing for example, is an esoteric issue. Not a scientific. Futher theres still no clear definition of pseudoscience. Sociologist makes research about such esoteric teachings. Do they estimate esoteric as pseudoscience? Thats just superficial and a denial of reality. The term pseudoscience is unsuitable as catagory. --WSC ^® 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that crystal healing is more esoteric than pseudoscientific, but it is really both. A better example might have been bioresonance therapy, a prototypical pseudoscience. Hans Adler 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

When all is said and done -- nothing that is not "empirically provable" is "science." Religion is "not science". Numerology is "not science". Economics is "not science." Philosophy is "not science" and virtually anything to do with how or why people act as they do is "not science." Labelling any such as "pseudo-science" is, moreover, of no real value to anyone. Why not restrict the term and label to such things as someone might reasonably expect to be "hard science" which is empirically disproven as being of value? Thus stopping a huge amount of useless discussion and drama on Wikipedia. (BTW, since no one really claims Astrology to be "science" the label "pseudoscience" is pretty useless, folks.) Collect (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience means, roughly, activity which pretends to be science but isn't. When we categorise astrology as a pseudoscience, we are not thinking of newspaper horoscopes (they are just entertainment) but of what astrologists consider 'proper', 'scientific' horoscopes. Therefore astrology is. Excluding it on the grounds that nobody can reasonably expect it to be hard science would take us too far from mainstream definitions of pseudoscience. I would consider this original research. Hans Adler 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended commentary on the parenthetical remark - but you do not affect my position that we can reduce drama vastly by simply placing a rational limit on what we label or categorise as "pseudoscience" and that reducing drama on Wikipedia is a "good idea." Anythng regarding human thought or behaviour is pretty much guaranteed not to be empirical science. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of arms of Western Sahara / SADR

Hello,

I would like to have opinions coming from uninvolved editors about the merging of the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as well as Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

For information, that same issue was previously discussed through:

• a "40+ comments by 7 editors" discussion on WP:DRN
• a "30+ comments by 6 editors (incl. 4 uninvolved)" discussion on WP:NPOVN
• followed by a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion, result was : "There is consensus for proposal 3 (i.e., a page explaining and linking to the various flags used to represent the territory, similar to Flag of Korea)"

Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara (note : history of Coat of Arms of Western Sahara broken after a controversial merging, but it was looking like that).

However, after a merger proposal to which 3 people participated:

• Flag of Western Sahara merged with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, that gave an extremely POV article giving too much weight to the SADR flag while it was supposed to be related to the disputed territory of Western Sahara, not to one of the claimants ;
• Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic moved to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, after which, when the move was undone, Coat of arms of Western Sahara became a redirect for Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, a situation which is clearly POV.

Since we didn't get a consensus on the respective talk pages I ask uninvolved users about their opinion regarding this issue:

• Which situation fulfills the WP:NPOV policy?
• How these articles should be modified to be NPOV?
• Should we go back to the RfC result and made them as it was decided 1 year ago since14 editors that gave their opinion then and that only 3 decided to break that previous consensus?

Reminder: Western Sahara is a disputed territory, claimed by:

• Morocco, which controls and administers about 80% of the territory ;
• The Polisario Front and the government-in-exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which claims the independence of the entire territory and controls 20% of the territory.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman should not have closed the merger proposal on February 14, 2013 since he participated in the discussion and the discussion was too brief to overturn the consensus determined earlier in the lengthier discussion that was closed by an uninvolved administrator (i.e. User:Sandstein on January 12, 2012). It appears as though no action was taken to implement that consensus, so I imagine that a new Rfc could be open if there is good reason to believe this consensus has changed. Location (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we posted at about the same time. Action was taken, the articles were merged and have been merged for over a mounth, see Flag of Western Sahara and the CoA article before Omor's unilateral split. In that time the only pension who's opposed to the merge has been from Omor himself, despite him inviting everyone involved in the original RFC to his Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES 26 days ago The discussion was left open for (at least) the standered seven days, and I probably wouldn't have closed it if the result wasn't unanimous. For more deateles see my post bellow, but in short everyone who participated in the RFC was informed by Omor 26 days ago, and no one other then Omor himself wants to re-split the articles. Whatever procedural problems there may have been with the original merge dusiction are now moot, we now have consensus. By the way, does anyone have a link to that ANI, I can't find it in the archives. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read all of this. The Rfc closed on January 12, 2012 appears to indicate that Flag of Western Sahara "should be an article detailing all the flags used to represent Western Sahara with the relevant information (i.e. Flag of Morocco, Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Regional flags of Western Sahara, Historical flags used in Western Sahara)" and it does. As I read it, there was no consensus as to whether Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic should be merged with Flag of Western Sahara or not in that Rfc. That would open the door to further discussion on whether to merge or not and, as you suggest, that appears to have been adequately advertised, discussed, and implemented. Both of your names are involved in various ANI discussions, so it is not possible for me to know which one you are referring to. Location (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unforcnitly, this is largely a user conduct issue, and I see no way of adqquitly explaining the situation without dragging user conduct into this. This is WP:FORUMSHOPING. Omar has already started an ANI, Talk:Flag of Western Sahara#UNMERGING ARTICLES, a note on an admins talk page, and now this. there are 4 people who support the merge (myself, User:Charles Essie, User:koavf, User:Dzlinker who reverted Omar's unilateral split, User:NickCT?) In the 25 days sense Omar invited everyone who participated in the original RFC to his after-merge discussion at Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, not only is he the only one who wants to re-split the articles (aside for one pearly procedural, no moot objection at the ANI), but the participants in his after-merge discussion didn't even think the the merge went against the original RFC. Both NickCT and I have asked Omar to explain how he feels that the flag/CoA articles are POV, so that we might be able to address his concerns and the flag/CoA articles more neutral. After his after-merge dusiction and ANI didn't result in the flag article being re-split, rather then accepting that he is the only one who wants to re-split the articles, and explaining what his NPOV concerns were, he tried to forum a separate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the CoA article, even tough that article has always followed the precedent of the flag article.

The merged CoA article (which looked like this before Omar's latest split) of of course had a Western Sahara title, but it was the WS article that was merged into the SADR article simply because the SADR article contained almost all the significant edit history. This was done through a Technical move request which Omor had the amidan undo on on the procedural grounds that he objected to it. This turned out to be just the prelude to Omor preforming a unilateral split of the CoA article which was reverted three times, once by User:Dzlinker, twice by me. I agree that the WS to SADR redirect is problematic, but it is Omor himself who created that situation by having a WS article moved to a SADR title. To create that situation and then to use it as an excuse to unilaterally split the article against consensus is gaming the system. At Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move.3F he started to explain what his NPOV concern was at the request of myself and NickCT, but he still insists on unilaterally spiting the article instead of helping to make it neutral.

He could have used the talk page, and given ideas on how to make the articles more neutral. He could have used WP:BRD to try to make the articles more neutral, as he did when he added an empty "Flag of Morocco" section to Flag of Western Sahara, which I filed it out with content adapted from Flag of Abkhazia#Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.

Omor, I request you withdrew this, self-revert your merge, and then put forward you ideas to make the articles more neutral, either on the article talk page, or vea BRD. If there are objections to one of your ideas, simply duscess with the objector on the talk page. Just don't form a local consensus on the CoA article, but the leave the flag article POV, make them BOTH neutral.

Now that that conduct issue is out of the way, this is very slimmeer to the case of Flag of Abkhazia, another disputed territory calmed by the Republic of Abkhazia as an independent state, and by Georgia as part of Georgia. It covers both the Republic of Abkhazia flag and the Georgian national flag (as it relates to Abkhazia) on the same article. Also to Flag of Syria and Flag of Libya durring the Libyan civil war, which covered both flags on the same article during their civil wars. Other articles about the flags of disputed territory which claim independence don't even mention the national flags of the larger country that clames them: Flag of Somaliland (claimed by Republic of Somaliland and Somalia), Flag of Nagorno-Karabakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan), Flag of Taiwan (Republic of China and China, redirect to Flag of the Republic of China, Flag of Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Cyprus), Flag of Tibet (Central Tibetan Administration and China). This is certenly not to say that I think that the Moricon flag should not be mencined, I that that Flag_of_Kosovo#Use_of_the_Serbian flag, acide from perhaps not giving the Serbian flag enough weight, does a good job of describing the use of the Serbian national flag in Kosovo. Flag of Western Sahara and the incorrectly titled Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic are certainly far more neutral then those other articles, which don't even mention the "other" flag. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased Editing of Kevyn Orr biography?

I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears the quote and citation in question are as follows:

The World Socialist Web Site has called Orr a "ruthless defender of corporate interests and a bitter enemy of working people."[21]

In my opinion, World Socialist Web Site is completely biased but is notable enough for a statement of opinion to be listed with in-text attribution as is noted above. Per WP:WEIGHT, this balances the opinion of Chambers and Partners that appears in the article and is derived from trivial mention in another source.[22] Please note that WP:RSN may be helpful here. Location (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)